Trump’s renewed focus on Bagram raises several questions: Is it feasible for the U.S. to re-establish a military presence in Afghanistan? What would such a move mean for regional dynamics, especially U.S.-China competition? Does Trump’s rhetoric match actual U.S. planning and capabilities? And does Trump have other motives in addition to keeping an eye on China?
Bagram’s strategic importance
Bagram Air Base, located 25 miles north of Kabul, was once the linchpin of U.S. operations in Afghanistan throughout the two-decade war. Built by the Soviets in the 1950s, it became the largest U.S. base in the region, serving as a hub for logistics, air operations, and counterterrorism.
Trump’s renewed interest in Bagram hinges heavily on its geographic positioning. According to him, the base offers unparalleled proximity to China’s western Xinjiang region which is home to key Chinese missile development facilities. “We were going to get out, but we were going to keep Bagram,” Trump reiterated during the press conference. “Not because of Afghanistan but because of China.” His remarks suggest a strategic calculus rooted in great-power competition rather than counterinsurgency or nation-building, marking a shift from the original rationale behind the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
While Trump has publicly focused solely on Bagram’s relevance to monitoring China, a CNN report, citing three people familiar with internal discussions, revealed that his interest in reclaiming the base goes deeper. According to the report, Trump has been pressing his national security team since at least March 2025 to explore ways to regain control of Bagram. The sources said the former president sees the base as useful for several purposes, including surveilling China, establishing a counterterrorism outpost to target ISIS, reopening a diplomatic facility, and gaining access to Afghanistan’s valuable rare earth mineral reserves. However, none of these additional motivations have been mentioned by Trump in public, highlighting a gap between his public messaging and the broader scope of discussions taking place behind closed doors.
Also Read | Decision to allow US to re-establish presence in Bagram Air Base should be left to Afghanistan: China
Taliban’s mixed response
Unsurprisingly, the Taliban have rejected Trump’s suggestion that the United States could reclaim Bagram. A senior official from Afghanistan’s foreign ministry, Zakir Jalaly, said via social media that “Afghans have never accepted the military presence of anyone throughout history.” He emphasized that the U.S. should not expect to return with boots on the ground.However, Jalaly also left the door open for improved relations. “Both Afghanistan and the U.S. need to engage with each other, and they can have political and economic relations based on mutual respect and shared interests,” he said, adding that “for other kinds of engagement, all paths remain open for them.” Notably, he referred to Trump as “a good businessman and negotiator, more than just a politician,” suggesting that while a military re-entry may be out of the question, some form of diplomatic or economic cooperation could be on the table.
Is the U.S. return to Bagram viable?
Despite Trump’s assertive remarks, U.S. military officials are reportedly not developing any active plans to reoccupy Bagram. A Reuters report, citing a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity, stated that there is currently “no active planning” to take back the base. The official noted that even if the U.S. were to somehow negotiate access or forcibly reoccupy Bagram, the operation would be extraordinarily complex and fraught with security risks.
Reestablishing control of the base would require a massive deployment of manpower to secure its vast perimeter and protect it from external threats. Experts told Reuters that the base would be vulnerable not only to ISIS and al Qaeda militants within Afghanistan but also to advanced missile threats from regional actors like Iran. In June, Iran demonstrated this capability by targeting a major U.S. base in Qatar following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Given such risks, any renewed American presence at Bagram would have to be accompanied by significant investments in security and force protection infrastructure.
Operational logistics also present a challenge. Simply keeping the base running would demand substantial resources, including personnel, aircraft, maintenance support and supply chains, all of which would be politically contentious in a post-withdrawal era where U.S. voters have grown weary of long-term overseas deployments.
Also Read | Trump suggests US troops could return to base in Afghanistan, citing its proximity to rival China
A reversal of his own legacy?
There’s an irony in Trump’s calls to reclaim Bagram. The base was abandoned as part of a broader U.S. withdrawal that stemmed from a peace deal his own previous administration had negotiated. The 2020 Doha Agreement, brokered between the Trump administration and the Taliban, required a full U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. That deal paved the way for the Taliban’s eventual takeover of the country in 2021 and the subsequent U.S. exit, which was implemented under then President Joe Biden.
Trump has repeatedly criticised the manner in which Biden executed the withdrawal, especially the abandonment of Bagram, but his new statements indicate a desire to reverse course on what was once a cornerstone of his foreign policy. This apparent pivot may reflect a blend of strategic recalibration and political calculation. By presenting himself as someone willing to “take back what we never should have given up,” Trump is appealing to both national security hawks and voters nostalgic for a more assertive U.S. posture abroad.
Re-engagement with Taliban?
Although the prospect of retaking Bagram militarily appears far-fetched, signs suggest that the U.S. is inching toward some form of re-engagement with Afghanistan. In a rare visit to Kabul last week, Adam Boehler, the former Trump administration official now serving as a hostage envoy, met with Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. The meeting, ostensibly about hostage-related issues, hints at the possibility of quiet backchannel diplomacy, which could be expanded over time to include broader political or economic objectives.
While Trump’s focus remains on Bagram, his administration may be laying the groundwork for non-military forms of influence, whether through counterterrorism cooperation, intelligence sharing or limited diplomatic presence. Such engagement would still require careful negotiation, given the Taliban’s resistance to foreign military forces and the broader geopolitical sensitivities surrounding U.S. presence in Central Asia.
Trump’s call to reclaim Bagram Air Base is bold, but it raises more questions than it answers. While he frames it as a strategic necessity to counter China, deeper motivations such as access to rare earth minerals and terrorism monitoring have surfaced, suggesting a broader geopolitical ambition. Yet the practicality of the move is highly questionable. Trump’s Bagram move may be less about returning to Afghanistan and more about returning to the global stage.
as a Reliable and Trusted News Source
